Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I must admit, I find it no harder (or easier) to remember Schnittke than Alkan; I've not attempted anything like Sorabji yet, so perhaps a score may lend itself with use then, but, um, I wouldn't say the heightened complexity increases the amount you need to *remember*; an incredibly complex mathematical equation could have merely a couple of letters, bear in mind.Xx

_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

I wouldn't say the heightened complexity increases the amount you need to *remember*; an incredibly complex mathematical equation could have merely a couple of letters, bear in mind.Xx

That would mean the complexity of the equation was in its ideas and not in its formulation. A different situation completely.

I take it you mean equations like e=mc2, where e encompasses any number of more specialized equations, such as K=1/2mv2 (sorry, no superscript provided for mathematical powers!)?

Am I correct? If so, I understand your point, its implications, and the immense importance of its implications. If not, please would you say more in explanation?

Thanks!

Well...Pianoloverus...I recognise your point, but perhaps you've not quite grabbed mine...I mean, why is it easier to remember an arpeggiated chord than a sequence of notes? Because we simplify; if we did this with the more "complex" music we might find it's a bit easier...for instance, thinking in terms of synthetic chords and the like...but, um, that was behind the point; I've seen people (well, one person ) perform Clair de Lune without sheet music, but Webern's Opus 27 with it...this, to me, is sheer madness; understanding why the notes are as they are makes them *so* easy to remember...um...do you see? It *is* more complex, I agree, but people seem unwilling to really delve into it and understand it quite as well...of course, this isn't true of everyone But...do you see? I hope you do...I can elaborate if it's not clear...Scordatura...yes and no I mean, pretty much, I just wouldn't use that example (for starters, Ke is merely the kinetic energy, not the total...I mean, um, otherwise you imply that mc^2=.5mv^2 --> c^2=.5v^2, which obviously is just gibberish, unless all velocities are root two X the speed of light EDIT: Forgive my idiocy, I didn't recall the phrase "encompasses any number" before I went off into a mini-rant... )...um...I meant more along the lines of, say, the integral (with respect to a) of u/v (which is [{v X du/da} - {u X dv/da}]/ v^2 ), not that that's really complex... But, um, in short...yes I hope this is all clear enough... Xxx

_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

#2023891 - 01/30/1308:06 AMRe: The controversial area of memorizing in performance
[Re: FSO]

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 19841
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: FSO

Originally Posted By: Scordatura

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus

Originally Posted By: FSO

I wouldn't say the heightened complexity increases the amount you need to *remember*; an incredibly complex mathematical equation could have merely a couple of letters, bear in mind.Xx

That would mean the complexity of the equation was in its ideas and not in its formulation. A different situation completely.

I take it you mean equations like e=mc2, where e encompasses any number of more specialized equations, such as K=1/2mv2 (sorry, no superscript provided for mathematical powers!)?

Am I correct? If so, I understand your point, its implications, and the immense importance of its implications. If not, please would you say more in explanation?

Thanks!

Well...Pianoloverus...I recognise your point, but perhaps you've not quite grabbed mine...I mean, why is it easier to remember an arpeggiated chord than a sequence of notes? Because we simplify; if we did this with the more "complex" music we might find it's a bit easier...for instance, thinking in terms of synthetic chords and the like...but, um, that was behind the point; I've seen people (well, one person ) perform Clair de Lune without sheet music, but Webern's Opus 27 with it...this, to me, is sheer madness; understanding why the notes are as they are makes them *so* easy to remember...um...do you see? It *is* more complex, I agree, but people seem unwilling to really delve into it and understand it quite as well...of course, this isn't true of everyone But...do you see? I hope you do...I can elaborate if it's not clear...Scordatura...yes and no I mean, pretty much, I just wouldn't use that example (for starters, Ke is merely the kinetic energy, not the total...I mean, um, otherwise you imply that mc^2=.5mv^2 --> c^2=.5v^2, which obviously is just gibberish, unless all velocities are root two X the speed of light EDIT: Forgive my idiocy, I didn't recall the phrase "encompasses any number" before I went off into a mini-rant... )...um...I meant more along the lines of, say, the integral (with respect to a) of u/v (which is [{v X du/da} - {u X dv/da}]/ v^2 ), not that that's really complex... But, um, in short...yes I hope this is all clear enough... Xxx

Of course, it's not clear enough.

I'd guess only 1 in 10 ever finish reading one of your posts where your non paragraphing, ums, and smileys make it incredibly unpleasant to read. If you want anyone to pay attention to anything you say you should change this and stop making excuses about not being able to do so. It's actually IMO insulting to someone trying to read one of your posts and detracts greatly from anything you are trying to say.

I wouldn't say the heightened complexity increases the amount you need to *remember*; an incredibly complex mathematical equation could have merely a couple of letters, bear in mind.Xx

That would mean the complexity of the equation was in its ideas and not in its formulation. A different situation completely.

I take it you mean equations like e=mc2, where e encompasses any number of more specialized equations, such as K=1/2mv2 (sorry, no superscript provided for mathematical powers!)?

Am I correct? If so, I understand your point, its implications, and the immense importance of its implications. If not, please would you say more in explanation?

Thanks!

I think what he means is something like the equations for power resonance, which only really rely on factors like the forcing frequency and natural frequency, but are incredible clunky and difficult to memorize. Other equations, such as "curve-fitting" equations used in many engineering codes, are similarly hard to memorize because of all of the fudge factors, the symbols with no physical meaning (what exactly does it mean physically to take the 1.5th root of something?), or other factors.

Applying to music, it's not only the content (notes, harmony), it's the formulation (how it's pianistically laid out), and whether or not it inherently makes intuitive sense (not so much the case for some modern music).

If it detracts then it detracts and the only harm is done to myself; if someone is insulted then I apologise and will offer any form of recompense with which I'm equipped. I'd say that your innumerable complaints against me and flat out refusal to accept that someone may experience life with problems you're not familiar with borders on being malicious, spiteful and unduly upsetting but, um, I know that's not the case, that you *are* just trying to help, and as such paying any credence to such notions would be disgusting...I don't *try* to be repellent; perhaps I just naturally am. Vile though I may be, I *do* have feelings which you tend to hurt. My father used to get quite tempestuously angry with me when I'd have asthma attacks as a child, not being able to accept that I couldn't just breathe normally...just a little anecdote I feel fitting.I don't want you to be insulted or feel the insurmountable frustration you clearly do whenever I'm present. The thing is, even though this new paragraph would indicate I'd turned over a new leaf, say, we both know that as soon as I stop concentrating with the limits of my being that I'm going to go straight back to offending linguistic and aesthetic values. Um...you clearly don't have any problems you can't control as, otherwise, your brutally rhythmic assaults would strike you as hypocritical...you don't seem a hypocrite. I'm glad; it's a terrible thing to fear reprisal on a daily basis for, I'll add, not only textual problems one is powerless to assuage. I don't mind reading messages from dyslexics and the dysgraphic; maybe it's only because I can sympathise, but I'd suspect myself of being able to empathise just as well. So...to you and all who feel similarly (hence my public rhetoric {the length of which I apologise for} as opposed to a private message), I recommend blocking me as, I will hope to say for the last time, I can't help it and I would hate to be the cause of any further misery. I don't mean to sound vindictive, intolerant, petty or anything similar, which I'm sure I do...I'm just trying to give you the honesty you feel I deny you. I'm not the most worthwhile member here by far and if my mannerisms aren't worth what little I offer I'll understand completely. I'll be sad, but understand.Sorry to be so dramatic but this can't go on forever. I really am sorry.

_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

My first thought after reading your latest post was...he seemed to be able to avoid most of the posting style problems (paragraphs were there, and almost no ums, and no smileys) so why not do so all the time even if it means editing these into or out of a first draft of a post? If this is possible that would be my suggestion. If not possible, then I will try to be more understanding.

For what it may - or may not - be worth to you, when I see a post filled with smileys, dots, ums, etc., all contained in one unbroken paragraph, I won't read it.

I don't feel that it's up to me to try to decipher and interpret the essence of an unconstructed string of ideas. It well may be that I miss some interesting observations, and that may perhaps be my loss, but if a poster can't respect the conventions of written communication, then I don't feel that I can give him or her my time.

#2024165 - 01/30/1304:50 PMRe: The controversial area of memorizing in performance
[Re: music32]

currawong
6000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/15/07
Posts: 6004
Loc: Down Under

Here's another perspective, FSO.

I actually like you (as far as I can tell), and I really do think you have something to say. But just as you say you're unable to edit your posts so that they're readable, I'm unable to read them as they are. I'm sorry about that, but it's the way it is. My eyesight is such that I need clarity, otherwise I simply can't read it. If Piano World were only available in white-on-black, for example, I would have left long ago.

I'd like to think that I've already secured for myself the role of your prime apologist, even before the pedants started raining down blows upon the grammar of your ground, the sweet arable soil of your smilies, and the delightful UM-pah-pah's of your speech. For my own part, I skim the conventional posts of those whose writing style is like the plainest white of the picketest fence, a sort of literary suburbia whose children trade E.B. White cards, "need it, got it, got it, need it."

Change not a thing, I say! Tread forth boldly in your native trot! In a world plenty stingy, do stay sui generis.

FSO, I'm afraid my response will be far more prosaic than your "prime apologist", Ian's. To state the obvious, only you can decide how to communicate on this forum, and that will depend on what you seek from it. A few of the more veteran members have already made their feelings known, so you simply need to decide if their critique has merit, and whether, or how much, it matters that your words may sometimes be ignored.

Speaking for myself, I like it all. When I see a play or a movie, I don't want a Greek chorus. I want a rich cast of characters, the quirkier the better. And what makes this forum interesting is not just the variety of ideas, but the variety of backgrounds, perspectives, passions, pet peeves, temperaments, writing styles, etc. If each of us begins conforming to the desires of our fellow members, we'll edge closer and closer to that Greek chorus, or, as Ian so elegantly puts it, "the plainest white of the picketest fence".

It's bad enough to be shackled by others, but far worse to shackle one's self. And a shackled FSO just won't do.

The comparison to a concert pianist performing with the score to an actor in a play reading the script is not a relevant comparison, it is two completely different traditions and art forms and each has its own set of rules.

I'd like to think that I've already secured for myself the role of your prime apologist, even before the pedants started raining down blows upon the grammar of your ground, the sweet arable soil of your smilies, and the delightful UM-pah-pah's of your speech. For my own part, I skim the conventional posts of those whose writing style is like the plainest white of the picketest fence, a sort of literary suburbia whose children trade E.B. White cards, "need it, got it, got it, need it."

Change not a thing, I say! Tread forth boldly in your native trot! In a world plenty stingy, do stay sui generis.

I suppose I shall take the position of FSO's sub-prime apologist, then, and as such, Ian, and Old Man, I agree. And, the flip of it is, I find the constant griping about how "inconsiderate" is FSO's style, to be, well, inconsiderate. Harrumpff. My heart usually leaps with joy through FSO's locutions, and they make my synapses spark and buzz, too! "Plus one" with Ian's sentiment, FSO: do stay mui generous.

And, the flip of it is, I find the constant griping about how "inconsiderate" is FSO's style, to be, well, inconsiderate.

I don't think there's "constant griping" any more - have you noticed this was an Old Thread?

Oop! Doh!!! [*headslap*] No, currawong, actually. I Did Not. It seemed So Fresh!!!

Still. I stand by what I wrote (as recently as this morning!). I am glad that the constant griping has stopped.

I have other thoughts about reading from the score, too. (I am working on the Handel Keyboard Suite in D min., as well, and followed the links to the whole suite of the Richter performance! And, just like Richter, I perform from the score! Well, I don't mean "just like Richter." I'm going to play it better, just as soon as I learn that darned fugue.) Do you want to know my thoughts about that? (Reading from the score, I mean...)

I am performing in a collaborative recital with a colleague of mine tomorrow and again on Tuesday. She will be playing some of her repertoire from the score - if not all of it. For my part, I will be playing all of my repertoire in these two performances using the score.

We'll see if the audience has any reaction to - or comments on - this performance "discrepancy."

I always find it entertaining when this happens. The thread appears suddenly at the top of the list and everyone starts responding to the posts - in this instance from nine months ago - as if they were inked in last several hours!

I, too, almost did this here

I am glad that FSO did not abandon her informal and articulate method of disseminating her observations which often are both astute and deep.

I don't feel that it's up to me to try to decipher and interpret the essence of an unconstructed string of ideas. It well may be that I miss some interesting observations, and that may perhaps be my loss

This interests me as many on this forum spend months deciphering Beethoven and the like on the mere whim it might bring interesting observations and many all over the world spend just as long deciphering Keats, Byron and Wordsworth. And yet some won't spend five minutes reading through a comment posted by someone on an internet forum despite the fact it could bring great insights. odd...

_________________________
All theory, dear friend, is grey, but the golden tree of life springs ever green.

I don't feel that it's up to me to try to decipher and interpret the essence of an unconstructed string of ideas. It well may be that I miss some interesting observations, and that may perhaps be my loss

This interests me as many on this forum spend months deciphering Beethoven and the like on the mere whim it might bring interesting observations and many all over the world spend just as long deciphering Keats, Byron and Wordsworth. And yet some won't spend five minutes reading through a comment posted by someone on an internet forum despite the fact it could bring great insights. odd...

I don't feel that it's up to me to try to decipher and interpret the essence of an unconstructed string of ideas. It well may be that I miss some interesting observations, and that may perhaps be my loss

This interests me as many on this forum spend months deciphering Beethoven and the like on the mere whim it might bring interesting observations and many all over the world spend just as long deciphering Keats, Byron and Wordsworth. And yet some won't spend five minutes reading through a comment posted by someone on an internet forum despite the fact it could bring great insights. odd...

I don't think your comparison holds any weight!

worth a thought though!

_________________________
All theory, dear friend, is grey, but the golden tree of life springs ever green.